PRAMOD JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case was detained in terms of order dated 21st July, 1992 passeed by the Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, Min. of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Preveention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short COFEPOSA). The aforesaid order of detention was served on the petitioner on 28th July, 1992 when he was in Jail.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 5th May, 1992 certain officers of the Enforcement Directorate conducted search at the premises of one Mr. Praveen Jain who happens to be brother of the petitioner at B-14A, 1st Floor, Vijay Nagar, Mew Delhi. It is further alleged that on the basis of said search, foreign currency worth Rs.35,00,000.00 and gold valued at Rs.l0,50,000.00 were seized by the officers of the En-forcement Directorate. According to the allegations the petitioner was anested at the spot on 5th/6th May, 1992, the petitioner was produced before the Court of Addl. Chief M.M.on 6th May, 1992 and was remanded to judicial custody on the remand application made by the enforcement officers. The statement of petitioner is alleged to have been recorded first on 5th May, 1992 and again in Jail on 20th May, 1992. The petitioner, however, was granted bail under Section 166(2) of Cr. P.C. on the ground that the complaint was not filed within the statutory period. Since the petitioner could not furnish the requisite surety bond, he was not released. It was while in Jail, as stated hereinabove, the order of detention was served on the petitioner on 28th July, 1992.

(3.) Mr. Harjinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged various contentions in the writ petition but he has confined his arguments only on two contentions. His first contention is that the petitioner was not supplied legible copies of the documents mentioned in para 15 of the writ petition and inspite of the fact that he had submitted a representation dated 12th August. 1992 (though according to the respondent the representation is dated 10th August, 1992) which was duly received byrespondent No.l. He, therefore, submitted that in the. absence of the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority, the petitioner could not make a proper representation to the detaining authority and as such the order of detention is liable to be qushed. In this connection the learned counsel referred to para 15,16 and grounds VIII of the Writ Petition. The leamed counsel has also placed reliance on Bhupinder Singh VS UOI, 1987(2) SCC, 234 and Subas Das VS UOI, 1988(2), Delhi Lawyers, 159 and Bhagat Raj VS UOI, 1991(2) C.C. cases, 475(HC).